Talk:Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough

Strabolgi

There is no Earldom of Strabolgi; there never was, and nobody ever said there was.

The Barony of Strabolgi is another question: the House of Lords decided, in 1916, that there had been one. But really it will not do to cite Complete Peerage for the statements below:

...Elizbeth Percy, daughter of Sir Henry of Athol Percy (grandson of Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland and Margaret Neville). Sir Henry of Athol's mother was Elizabeth Strathbogie, the daughter of David of Strathbogie, titular 12th Earl of Atholl (d. 10 October 1369) and his wife Elizabeth Ferrers. David was also the de jure Earl of Strathbogi; a title that would pass to the Baron Burgh's as Baron Strabolgi.

Complete Peerage explicitly and repeatedly denies that there was any Barony of Strabolgi before 1916 - not least in their one paragraph entry under "Strabolgi"; if there had been one, he would not have inherited it, either by contemporary law or by modern law; it was in abeyance. Strathbogie was not, strictly speaking, a surname; and they call this Sir Henry Percy "Sir Henry Percy" with no Atholl about him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Baron Burgh of Gainsborough

I was wondering why his title of page is not Thomas Burgh, 1st Baron Burgh of Gainsborough? He was created 1st Lord Burgh, of Gainsborough [England by writ] on 1 September 1487. In technical terms, he was the 1st Baron; his son was 2nd but was not called to Parliament as he was found insane and the title lapsed until his grandson was called up with a new writ but is generally referred to as 3rd Baron Burgh of Gainsborough in many of the peerage books. Is this page going by another system or something? If anything he should be titled Thomas Burgh, 1st Baron Burgh of Gainsborough. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, the reason why his son was not called to Parliament as the 2nd Baron Burgh is because in 1510 he was found insane. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction to this page is self-opinionated and not encyclopaedic. The Complete Peerage by G.E.Cockaye is considered the supreme authority on the Peerage. Thomas Burgh was summoned by Writs to Parliament from 1st September 1487 to 12th August 1495, whereby he is held to have become Lord Burgh. It is unclear if he sat in Parliament or not, although this is irrelevant. Under the English system a Writ of Summons to Parliament means you are held to be a peer. You may not like that but that's how it worked. It was not this Thomas, 1st Lord Burgh, who was mentally unstable, so that too is wrong. It was his son Edward, and probably he had some form of dementia as the records state he was declared a lunatic because of being "distracted of memorie".

2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:1CCE:37BB:6D8:CF6B (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I originally started the article. At that time, I titled it “Thomas Burgh, 1st Baron Burgh (d.1496)”. Someone disputed his title a few years later and changed the title to what it is now even though I’ve shown proof that he was indeed titled, Baron Burgh of Gainsborough. He was created 1st Lord Burgh, of Gainsborough [England by writ] on 1 September 1487 according to Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume I, page 309. Lady Meg (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)